Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDenmark B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslands B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Burgund / Bornholm[edit]

Is it correct to identify "Burgundarholmr" with Bornholm? Wetman 15:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. According to a danish dictionary on etymology ("Etymologi. Ordenes historie. Gyldendals Røde Ordbøger. Copenhagen, 1989)

See Burgundians.

I'm hoping this is an appropriate place to put this: the etymologies contradict each other. The etymology in the introduction says the name is from Burgundy, and the etymology at the beginning of the history section says it comes from 'berg'. I think this really ought to be cleared up. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no connection between the island and Burgundy. At the time, when Adam of Bremen wrote about it (1070) he called the island Holm og Hulm. Navnet Bornholm har heller intet med hverken Burgundy elle rburgundere at gøre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professor Nornam Davis, one of the highest respected medieval historians in Europa, writes about Burgundy in his latest book: “Vanished Kingdoms The History of Half-forgotten Europa” Pinguin Books Limited 2011. He opens the chapter “Burgundia” with 3 full pages on Bornholm. He say: “ All in all, therefore, the traditional identification of Bornholm with the prehistoric wanderings of the Burgundians is entirely credible: By no means proven, but more than a mere possibility”. page 89. Some historians, probably for personal reasons, do not like this hypothesis and thus try to make it more likely, the name has another origin. But in the name of impartial judgement, Professor Davis’ professional statement about the credibility of a historical link between Bornholm and Burgundy ought to find its way into Wikipedia’s description of Bornholm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someboyd wrote: "I'm hoping this is an appropriate place to put this: the etymologies contradict each other. The etymology in the introduction says the name is from Burgundy, and the etymology at the beginning of the history section says it comes from 'berg'. I think this really ought to be cleared up." Yes indeed. But to call Norman Davies (as the correct spelling of his name is – I don't know of any Nornam Davis) is not the whole truth. Actually was denied a chair at Stanford University, "Davies' works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz (author of The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945) who said they felt Davies minimized historic anti- Semitism in Poland and tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust. Davies' supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939."

- look it up here If you go to other sources, (i.a. the German Reallexikon and others) you will find that other scholars today agree that the word refers to berg - or a high island. I can come back later with details. The archaeologists at Bornholms Museum has not found anything here, that supports the outdated theory, that Burgundians were here. (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Jan EskildsenReply[reply]

The flag[edit]

Normally the flag of Bornholm is produced as a green cross on red background, and not with white borders on the cross as shown in the article (oct. 23rd 2005), but even on Bornholm some people discuss the correct design. I assume most people choose the two-colour model as "the real flag", but I am not updated on the debate since I moved from the island in '99 G®iffen 21:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been moves afoot to get the flag (with the white borders) offically recognised. Unfortunately, the application was denied: [KarlJorgensen] 25 Apr 2006

In that case, this article should state that the flag is not official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The one with the White borders is mainly used on the Northern part of Bornholm around Gudjem and Tejn. The Red-Green is widely used, especially by the military while on exercise in Denmark and on international missions. It is also used a lot by German boats visiting Bornholm, and finally as stickers on cars. 8 Oct 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Starlight (talkcontribs) 13:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mustard Gas[edit]

It is common knowledge that large amounts of chemical weapons (a lot of it mustard gas) was dumped in the sea around Bornholm and trawlers often catch it in their nets (or whatever it is they use).

Is this worth mentioning? Opinions on a postcard...

Yes, the trawl is also a kind of net...
I think we might need some more info to get a total picture of the problem before writing a paragraph about it.
One of the relatively big investment flops was turning an old german bunker into a mustard gas storage, where m.gas should be put when found. As far as I know, nobody ever put anything but work and money into the project, since easier and better ways were found every time a ship came in for cleaning.
As long as we're on this discussion page, it might be worth mentioning that most fishermen in the area knows the procedure of walking backwards from gas poisoned areas on the ship while taking off clothes and equipment on the way, and then calling the authorities for further instructions. Though some of "the old scools" just put on gloves and re-dump the bombs! G®iffen 16:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danish and German Versions[edit]

It is interesting that the English version is much longer than the Danish entry for Bornholm on Wikipedia! On the other hand, the German version is much longer than the English entry. Of course the right source is a Dane with a few Danish encyclopedias and history books handy who can also write in English! If you fit the bill, please start writing! Things which are missing include the island's geology, geography, a longer history section, and a description of the tourism industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The Danish version does not have to be so long, because any Dane learns half of it in school... :-) Germans have always been known of being very - what is it called, thorough? - and will therefore need at least one more detail than anyone else in the world.
Well, just kidding, but right now at this point, I think it would be nicer to have the danish version upgraded? G®iffen who was born and bread at Bornholm but doesn't care much about dusty history books 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S.: Many danes started using the english Wiki before the danish was started, and most Danes read some english, so mostly it's not a problem to use the english version. This topic has been discussed a lot at da:Wiki... Besides Bornholm takes up approx 250-270 words in my 1800 page "Gyldendals Leksikon" from 2002. The da:Wiki article has more, even without ext.links.

Most Dialects of Norwegian have retained trigender articles?[edit]

Not to sure about this one...It's primarily only some dialects of Nynorsk that retain three genders. And even at that Nynorsk is by far the minority language of Norway. Bokmål (being based on Danish) has lost the female gender. --Lucozade33 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)AbReply[reply]

East of Denmark[edit]

It says that it is only east of most of Denmark. Which part of Denmark is further east than it? Thanks. TheTrojanHought (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't matter, I've just seen that there is a tiny archipelago a few miles to the east!! 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it originally said "east of Denmark", which it obviously can't be as it is a part of Denmark – it would be like placing Hawaii "west of the United States". The current compromise is probably not the best imaginable though. -- Jao (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ertholmene is east of Bornholm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have Ertholmene, some small islands: Christiansø, Frederiksø and Tat. Actually the island is located East of (Eatern) Götaland in Sweden – as Adam of Bremen called it: Gothia. A capture for the pictures says "five round churches" - we only have four here on the island: Østerlars, Olsker, Nylars and Nyker. Jan Eskildsen87.57.199.89 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Russian declaration[edit]

A Russian (Soviet) declaration after World War II stated that the placement of "foreign soldiers" (i.e., NATO forces) on Bornholm would be considered a declaration of war against Russia, and that Denmark should keep troops on it at all times to protect it from foreign aggression. This caused diplomatic problems at least twice: once when an American helicopter landed outside the city of Svaneke due to engine problems in a NATO exercise over the Baltic Sea, and once (sometime between 1999 and 2003) when the Danish government suggested shutting down Almegårdens Kaserne, the local military facility, since "the island could quickly be protected by troops from surrounding areas and has no strategic importance after the fall of the Iron Curtain".

How can they object to NATO forces being present in part of a NATO member country (Denmark)? And what gives them the right to object in the first place? Why not object to troops in any other NATO territory? What is special about Bornholm? -- (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a strange page for the Island i live on. I don't wnat to waste my time by correcting it, because everybody can correct the text after that. But just for a start the Island is a cliff. Denmark and Bornholm are the worst "swines" filling the Baltic Sea with poison, pigs crab and ammonia. On the other hans fihing has come down to appr. ZEO and has been there for the last 15 years or so. Not even the largest cities are mentioned by their right names - Rønne, Nexø, Hasle, Svaneke, Sandvig, Allinge. And it is only one (1) municipality now: Bornholms Regionskommune. This so called encyklopedia is worth nothing more than toilet paper - unfortunately it can't even be used to rub my ass. Drop the project or find a way to secure, that the records reflect the truth. [Jan Eskildsen, Bornholm]

No Jan, you are right. The cities are spelled all wrong, they are shown with their Danish names instead of the Bornholmish names. Which are: Rønna, Nylârs, Bolsker, Næjse, Svânika, Sandvig-Âlinja, Hâzle and Åkjærkeby —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Starlight (talkcontribs) 11:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"In 2009, Bjørn Friese embarrassed the whole graphic design community by releasing FRIEZE[1] onto the world wide web."

Is this spam? There is no evidence put forth to suggest that Mr. Friese did any such embarrassing.

Malcolm33 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language or dialect[edit]

Since there is obviously some disagreement on this we should perhaps take it to the talk page. I have not been able to find a single source that claims that Bornholmsk is an independent language. All known references say it is a dialect of Danish (including Salmonsens, Den Store Danske og Please find a source that says otherwise to back up your claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolute a good idea with adding it to the talk page. I have changed the originally text to show the two versions, danish one and bornholmian one. My sources for claiming that it is a language is: The book (Det Bornholmske sprog) by P. Møller, The native people of Bornholm, that it is on UNESCO's list see [1] and the Bornholmian historian Camilla Dahl.

The books you refer to, is written by Danes, for Danes! It is the same in Sweden, where the Swedish state refuse to accept Scanian as a language.

Beside of that I like to prove my point by these examples:

Bornholm have words which is almost un-translatable to Danish and English for that matter. I can give you some examples…

Enjhelu means “a lot” Toppa means “Pull someone’s hair” Fægjes means, well this one is really difficult the closest I can get is “A couple caress; fondle; lavish great care”.

Next words can easily be translated but you will see how far they are from Danish…

Danish – Bornholmish – English: Fodbold - Fobojl – Football Frø - Pugga – Frog Græde - Vræla – Cry Hæslig - Ræli – Ugly Mudder - Plødra – mud Flue - Flâua – a Fly

And I could go on…

The Norwegian language is much closer to Danish both in words and grammar than Bornholmian is, does this then means that Norwegian is also a dialect? S Starlight (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nationality of the authors of the sources are irrelevant, I could as well use the (strawman) argument that people from Bornholm was twisting facts because they wanted a language of their own. Incidentally the book I was citing is also using P. Møllers book as a reference, seemingly without seeing any conflict of opinions, so I have ordered the P. Møller book from the library to check the citation you provide.
Skautrup includes skånsk (Scanian) in the østdanske (Eastern Danish) dialects, so that Bornholmsk is included in the Skånelandske dialects does not make that much of a difference officially.
Regarding your question about Norwegian the I suggest you read the article North Germanic languages especially the passage:"The North Germanic languages are often cited as proof of the aphorism "A language is a dialect with an army and navy." The differences in dialects within the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark can often be greater than the differences across the borders, but the political independence of these countries leads continental Scandinavian to be classified into Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish in the popular mind as well as among most linguists." The probability of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish being dialects of the same language is great, and only national borders unrelated to philology has assured each the status of language.
I cannot use your examples because philology does not work like that. What looks unrelated to the layman can very well be related to the philologist. I could as well bring up Sønderjysk, which has numerous words of its own that are not readily understandable to a native Danish speaker, but noone claims that Sønderjysk is an independent language of its own.
The current "solution" with a "Danish" and "Bornholmsk" section that are virtually identical is not acceptable. The current official view is that Bornholmsk is a dialect. But as it seems there is some strong sentiments on Bornholm that it is a language, that should be mentioned as well. However, the claim that it is a dialect is the main one, while your edit makes it appear the other way around. The sentence should read something like this: "Many inhabitants speak bornholmsk (Bornholmian), which is officially a dialect of Danish.(ref Skautrup). However, among many Bornholmians there is a there is also a strong public sentiment towards having it officially accepted as language, backed by it recently being included among the languages of Skåneland by UNESCO on its Red Book of Endangered Languages.(UNESCO article source)". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that The nationality of the authors of the sources are irrelevant, because the authors is under influence of the states politic, and paid by the state.

I accept your proposal for the new text, well written!

S Starlight (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course there are some political agendas behind this kind of thing, as the quote from North Germanic languages I provided above shows (it works both ways). But my meaning was simply that it is unconstructive when trying to achieving consensus here in Wikipedia, especially as we do not seem to have any reliable sources to incorporate the full scope of this aspect in the article. However I am glad that you liked my proposal and I have now changed the article accordingly. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I flat-out removed the mention of "strong sentiments" among Bornholmians about classifying their dialect as a separate language. There were similar views opined over at Scanian dialects, but that turned out to be mostly hot air. Most of this seems to have emanated from a vocal minority in southern Sweden that found acceptance with the thoroughly unscientific SIL. Regional resentment of the central authorities is not uncommon and is always worth describing, but it doesn't mean that every claim of a unique language status should be taken seriously. Especially not when it comes variants that are so obviously similar to the standard language.
Peter Isotalo 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electricity Supply[edit]

How long is the power cable to Sweden? When was it laid? Where are wind turbines and other power plants on Bornholm? Which is their output power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea, but Østkraft might be able to answer that. See to contact them S Starlight (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map of Bornholm[edit]

When a visitor looks at the map of Bornholm, it is difficult to evaluate its size. So the dimensions of Bornholm would be easier to comprehend with a scale bar. If there is someone who knows how to create things like that, it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsu (talkcontribs) 07:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nazi Atomic Bomb development on Bornholm"???[edit]

I'm fairly sure that this is complete fabrication:

First of all, I grew up on Bornholm and lived there during the 50 years' anniversary of the liberation when every minor detail from the occupation and liberation were all over the local media, and I've never heard of this story before. By contrast, the story of the experimental V-rockets landing on Bornholm and being photographed by the resistance were well-known, documented and publicised.
Secondly, you could hardly start mining uranium without it being very easily detectable, and yet again I've never heard of such a claim. In fact, I've never heard that Bornholm possessed uranium deposits of a type which it would be viable to mine.
Thirdly, the Toronto Daily Star article is extremely vague, and only claims that the nuclear scientists were captured on Bornholm - not that they conducted their experiments there (and why would they?). Furthermore, it contradicts the claim "that Germany had had the nuclear bomb since June 1944" by explicitly citing Rivet as saying that the scientists "were on the eve of successfully completing their researches on the atom bomb".
Finally, all the sources are US newspaper clippings, mostly from 1945 and one each from 1946 and 1948. If the story was true, why has not a single historian written a book or an article on such an astounding event?
In short, I call BS on this claim.
Mojowiha (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to "be bold" and simply remove the section. If anyone can find some credible sources for the claims of Nazi nuclear research and uranium mining ("rumoured to be under Hammershus", really...?), feel free to reinstate it.
Mojowiha (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Family name[edit]

Bornholm is also a present family name which Swedish main branch in the middle of the 17th century originated from the area in the south of Sweden named Skåne. Prior to this period Skåne was Danish so the family trace have been difficult to find. From the 17th century to the 19th century the main occupation in the family was master shoemaker i.e. a private entrepreneur with up to 25 employees and apprentices. One family lived at the manor Axelwold but did not own the manor. One family owned a large estate in the vicinity of the Swedish town of Trelleborg during the 17th and 18th century. Even in USA today there are a couple of families with the family name Bornholm. Some of them originate from a family that emigrated from Copenhagen (Denmark) before the first World War. Additional families can be found in Australia (e.g. South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania). The connection between the Swedish, American and Australian familys is unknown. There were also a family with the name Bornholm in northern Germany in the 18th century and there is a doctor with this name in Germany today. The Swedish family consists today of two branches.

In the southwest Australia there is also a hamlet Bornholm near a small town with the name Denmark. These towns are old mining towns and the result of great immigrations during the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bornholm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Though I am not qualified to make the edits myself, the history section for Bornholm can go back far further than it does currently, at least to the period of the Roman Empire and likely earlier. Pliny the Elder wrote of Bornholm (Baunonia), and it is possible that the Greek explorer Pytheas actually traveled there in the 4th century B.C.E. It is discussed as a possible ancestral home of Germanic tribes that later inhabited the Vistula region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The section entitled "Education" needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:952D:7A03:9565:EAF (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove my 26 and 27 March edits[edit]

My edits from 26 and 27 March need to be removed. I was trying to fill in the Municipal council: Election graphic (numbers) for 2002 - which are correct. But I have made a mistake and tried - but failed - to correct it several times. I need my edits from 26 and 27 March to just be removed. If someone could then fill in the election results from 2002 I would be grateful.--Bornsommer (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Danish part of Skånelandene[edit]

I would like to challange the statement "Bornholm and Ertholmene comprise the last remaining Danish territory in Skåneland east of Øresund, having been surrendered to Sweden in 1658, but regained by Denmark in 1660 after a local revolt". Though not east of Øresund and thus technically correct, the still Danish island of Anholt was also a part of Skånelandene – Halland to be exact.--Marginataen (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]